Christian Forums

In Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger, John L. Allen Jr. writes about the close relationship between the Catholic Church and the Nazi Party:

Many ordinary Catholics objected to attacks on their church, but there was simply no opposition to Nazism tout ensemble. ... In fact, there were key points at which Nazi and Catholic attitudes intersected and created a basis for mutual support. Both groups hated the Weimar Republic. The Nazis opposed Weimar because it was allegedly too Jewish and led by the "November Criminals

Intellectually dishonest and incomplete to say the least.  Not to mention a total lack of understanding of how history should be understood or even analyzed.  Not sure where to begin.  Better yet, not sure what point is trying to be made here.  Is this even worth my time?

Just to point out all the quote mentioned here are directly from Joseph Ratzinger in his personal biography. So I guess if anyone has a total lack of understanding of how history should be understood or analyzed that would be the present Roman Pontiff.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 11:23:17
Just to point out all the quote mentioned here are directly from Joseph Ratzinger in his personal biography. So I guess if anyone has a total lack of understanding of how history should be understood or analyzed that would be the present Roman Pontiff.

I was referring to you.  You have a lack of understanding of how history should be understood or analyzed.  As a professor once told me, never judge history through your own eyes using current values or norms.  Besides, I am still trying to figure out what point you are trying to make.  In other words, instead of presenting a collection of quotes and references to photos, etc....state a conclusion or position.

Quote from: broach972 on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 11:33:01
I was referring to you.  You have a lack of understanding of how history should be understood or analyzed.  As a professor once told me, never judge history through your own eyes using current values or norms.

I have made no comments on this information, the comments are from a secular journalist.

Quote from: broach972 on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 11:33:01Besides, I am still trying to figure out what point you are trying to make.  In other words, instead of presenting a collection of quotes and references to photos, etc....state a conclusion or position.

I will allow the readers to draw their own conclusions.

I have certainly drawn my own conclusions--intellectually dishonest and definitely incomplete.  Your post serves no purpose whatsoever.  However, I did find the following website interesting...I am surprised that you did not bring any of this up...

http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/church/keithpage/protesta.htm

Now we are arriving at a better understanding of the times...

Quote from: broach972 on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 11:55:07
I have certainly drawn my own conclusions--intellectually dishonest and definitely incomplete.  Your post serves no purpose whatsoever.  However, I did find the following website interesting...I am surprised that you did not bring any of this up...

http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/church/keithpage/protesta.htm

Now we are arriving at a better understanding of the times...

Protestants act independently and didn't sign a concordat between the Vatican and the Nazi Germany. So while I agree there were many Protestant groups swept away by the evil genius of Adolf Hitler, none of them made formal agreements with the Nazis to protect themselves or to aid the Nazis in extinguishing the Jews. Not to mention the Pope also signed the Lateran Treaty four years earlier with Mussolini which established Catholicism as the official religion of the state.

As a history professor I thought you would have known this.

I notice one of the sources quoted was Cornwell's Hitler's Pope; yet Cornwell'sw book was denounced by nearly everyone, certainly by serious historians and scholars, as nothing but anti-Pius/anti-Catholic propaganda. As I understand it, even Cornwell has admitted it's biased. I have this book in my home library and can attest to the fact that its a hatchet-job on Pius XII.

Regarding this subject, there's a lot of biased propaganda like Cornwell's book. There are some much more balanced books, among them Dr. Ronald Rychlack's Hitler, the War and the Pope, Sister Margherita Marchione, PhD's Consensus and Controversy: Defending Pope Pius XII, and Yours Is a Precious Witness: Memoirs of Jews and Catholics in Wartime Italy, and Rabbi David Dalin's The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis. Though their work is excellent, Rychlack and Marchione are Catholic scholars but Dalin isn't-he's a conservative Jewish rabbi, hence can't be accused of pro-Pius bias. Even Susan Zuchotti's book, Under His Very Windows, while critical of Pius, is much more balanced than Cornwell's book.

When the Vatican signed its 1933 concordat with Nazi Germany, this was nothing out of the ordinary; such concrdats were nothing new-the Vatican routinely signed such concordats with the nations of Europe-as I recall, the Vatican had signed such a concordat with Napoleon's France even though there was no love lost between Napoleon and the Vatican. And besides, if Hitler violated the concordat, which he did, repeatedly, then the Vatican would have a legal leg to stand on in its protests, which it did, repeatedly. The Vatican knew this, which was one reason it signed the Concordat.

According to Hitler, Pius XII and the Catholic Church were his biggest enemies. So big that Der Fuhrer actually contemplated kidnapping the Pontiff. Hitler executed hundreds, if not thousands, of Catholic priests, along with Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Slavs, Poles, Gypsies, etc.

The German Lutheran Church bears far more blame than the Catholic Church, as it for the most part asssimilated and became transformed into the Nazi State Church. Only those Lutheran churches that were part of Lutheran pastor Dietrich Boenhoffer's Confessing Churches  resisted the Nazis and went underground, and Boenhoffer himself was martyred for his role in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler.

Pope Pius XII did everything he could to oppose Hitler and the Nazis. This is evidenced in part by the public expressions of thanks offered the Pontiff by dozens of Jewish rabbis after the war. The Pontiff made some very direct staments. However Pius couldn't afford to be more direct than he was because he genuinely feared Nazi reprisals, not only against Catholics in Germany and Nazi occupied areas, but against Jews. However on dozens of occasions he made public denouncements of the Nazi treatment of Jews, that, even though couched in veiled language, were understood by the Nazis as exactly what they were.


Pax.

Some day somebody will find pictures of me shaking hands with somebody who might later prove to be a major scumbag. 

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 12:30:51
I notice one of the sources quoted was Cornwell's Hitler's Pope; yet Cornwell'sw book was denounced by nearly everyone, certainly by serious historians and scholars, as nothing but anti-Pius/anti-Catholic propaganda. As I understand it, even Cornwell has admitted it's biased. I have this book in my home library and can attest to the fact that its a hatchet-job on Pius XII.

Regarding this subject, there's a lot of biased propaganda like Cornwell's book. There are some much more balanced books, among them Dr. Ronald Rychlack's Hitler, he War and the Pope, Sister Margherita Marchione, PhD's Consensus and Controversy: Defending Pope Pius XII, and Yours Is a Precious Witness: Memoirs of Jews and Catholics in Wartime Italy, and Rabbi David Dalin's The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis. Though their work is excellent, Rychlack and Marchione are Catholic scholars but Dalin isn't-he's a conservative Jewish rabbi, hence can't be accused of pro-Pius bias. Even Susan Zuchotti's book, Under His Very Windows, while critical of Pius, is much more balanced than Cornwell's book.

When the Vatican signed its 1933 concordat with Nazi Germany, this was nothing out of the ordinary; such concrdats were nothing new-the Vatican routinely signed such concordats with the nations of Europe-as I recall, the Vatican had signed such a concordat with Napoleon's France even though there was no love lost between these Napoleon and the Vatican. And besides, if Hitler violated the concordat, which he did, repeatedly, then the Vatican would have a legal leg to stand on in its protests, which it did, repeatedly. The Vatican knew this, which was one reason it signed the Concordat.

According to Hitler, Pius XII and the Catholic Church were his biggest enemies. So big that Der Fuhrer actually contemplated kidnapping the Pontiff. Hitler executed hundreds, if not thousands, of Catholic priests, along with Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Slavs, Poles, Gypsies, etc.

The German Lutheran Church bears far more blame than the Catholic Church, as it for the most part asssimilated and became transformed into the Nazi Sate Church. Only those Lutheran churches that were part of Lutheran pastor Dietrich Boenhoffer's Confessing Churches  resisted the Nazis and went underground, and Boenhoffer himself was martyred for his role in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler.

Pope Pius XII did everything he could to oppose Hitler and the Nazis. This is evidenced in part by the public expressions of thanks offered the Pontiff by dozens of Jewish rabbis after the war. The Pontiff made some very direct staments. However Pius couldn't afford to be more direct than he was because he genuinely feared Nazi reprisals, not only against Catholics in Germany and Nazi occupied areas, but against Jews. However on dozens of occasions he made public denouncements of the Nazi treatment of Jews, that, even though couched in veiled language, were understood by the Nazis as exactly what they were.


Pax.

Now this is a complete analysis of what actually happened.  Charles Sloan is so blinded by his anti-Catholic bias that he doesn't really see the whole picture.  Like I stated earlier, his OP was intellectually dishonest and incomplete.

Thanks Lee for not just throwing out a bunch of quotes and references to pictures.  As a response to Charles' earlier post...as a history teacher, I am very much aware of the information presented by Lee.  If Charles was truly a student of history, he would also be aware of this information as well.

I wonder where the German Lutheran Church figures in the opening post here.

I also wonder what Maximillian Kolbe has to do with this?

Quote from: broach972 on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 13:50:26

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 12:30:51
I notice one of the sources quoted was Cornwell's Hitler's Pope; yet Cornwell'sw book was denounced by nearly everyone, certainly by serious historians and scholars, as nothing but anti-Pius/anti-Catholic propaganda. As I understand it, even Cornwell has admitted it's biased. I have this book in my home library and can attest to the fact that its a hatchet-job on Pius XII.

Regarding this subject, there's a lot of biased propaganda like Cornwell's book. There are some much more balanced books, among them Dr. Ronald Rychlack's Hitler, he War and the Pope, Sister Margherita Marchione, PhD's Consensus and Controversy: Defending Pope Pius XII, and Yours Is a Precious Witness: Memoirs of Jews and Catholics in Wartime Italy, and Rabbi David Dalin's The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis. Though their work is excellent, Rychlack and Marchione are Catholic scholars but Dalin isn't-he's a conservative Jewish rabbi, hence can't be accused of pro-Pius bias. Even Susan Zuchotti's book, Under His Very Windows, while critical of Pius, is much more balanced than Cornwell's book.

When the Vatican signed its 1933 concordat with Nazi Germany, this was nothing out of the ordinary; such concrdats were nothing new-the Vatican routinely signed such concordats with the nations of Europe-as I recall, the Vatican had signed such a concordat with Napoleon's France even though there was no love lost between these Napoleon and the Vatican. And besides, if Hitler violated the concordat, which he did, repeatedly, then the Vatican would have a legal leg to stand on in its protests, which it did, repeatedly. The Vatican knew this, which was one reason it signed the Concordat.

According to Hitler, Pius XII and the Catholic Church were his biggest enemies. So big that Der Fuhrer actually contemplated kidnapping the Pontiff. Hitler executed hundreds, if not thousands, of Catholic priests, along with Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Slavs, Poles, Gypsies, etc.

The German Lutheran Church bears far more blame than the Catholic Church, as it for the most part asssimilated and became transformed into the Nazi Sate Church. Only those Lutheran churches that were part of Lutheran pastor Dietrich Boenhoffer's Confessing Churches  resisted the Nazis and went underground, and Boenhoffer himself was martyred for his role in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler.

Pope Pius XII did everything he could to oppose Hitler and the Nazis. This is evidenced in part by the public expressions of thanks offered the Pontiff by dozens of Jewish rabbis after the war. The Pontiff made some very direct staments. However Pius couldn't afford to be more direct than he was because he genuinely feared Nazi reprisals, not only against Catholics in Germany and Nazi occupied areas, but against Jews. However on dozens of occasions he made public denouncements of the Nazi treatment of Jews, that, even though couched in veiled language, were understood by the Nazis as exactly what they were.


Pax.

Now this is a complete analysis of what actually happened.  Charles Sloan is so blinded by his anti-Catholic bias that he doesn't really see the whole picture.  Like I stated earlier, his OP was intellectually dishonest and incomplete.

Thanks Lee for not just throwing out a bunch of quotes and references to pictures.  As a response to Charles' earlier post...as a history teacher, I am very much aware of the information presented by Lee.  If Charles was truly a student of history, he would also be aware of this information as well.

Thanks broach. I'm not an apologist for Roman Catholicism however it bothers me when people, well-meaning or otherwise, distort history like that. I suppose it's easier to repeat untrue stereotypes and urban legends than it is to study for oneself. Also, many people don't know how to read critically to determine what an author's biases are.

I'd encourage Charles or anyone else whose interested to read both sides of the argument-pro and con-and then make up their minds. Read, say, Rychlack or Dalin, then Zuchotti. But don't use biased secondary sources that obviously have an axe to grind, such as popular biographies of Benedict XVI or works like Cornwell's.

This whole attack on Pius XII goes back to German playwright Rolf Hochuth's controversial 1963 play The Deputy, which was a hatchet-job on Pius XII and his actions regarding the Jews of Europe.

Pax.

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 12:38:36
Some day somebody will find pictures of me shaking hands with somebody who might later prove to be a major scumbag. 

Well, I would pray it wasn't Hitler... or that you were seen giving the "hail" sign...  that cannot be denied.  I don't care who doesn't like the history of this article... seeing Catholic Priest doing the "hail Hitler" makes me want to throw up. 

But, I guess you would have to have an understanding for the Jews to feel that way. 

Seeing them do this sign, is just more evidence to that whole "idol" thing they go in for.  Worship of man.  It's a no brainer.

Kensington, doing the "Heil Hitler" in Nazi Germany is akin to standing and placing your hand over your heart when the National Anthem is played in America. Not to have done so would've indicated to anyone looking on that the person refusing to do so was an unpatriotic German. Which under Hitler's regime could get you sent to a concentration camp. Or worse. Everryone in Germany was required to demonstrate their patriotism. If you resisted, you could get into serious trouble.

What would you think about someone in America who refused to stand when the Star Spangled Banner was played? And when people do stand, does that automatically mean they agree with everything the current president or congress says/has done? Or that they agree with everything America has done? Of course not.

Pius XII and his cardinals and bishops had to tolerate Der Fuhrer because he was the duly elected Reich Chancellor. To openly oppose him, esp. to his face, would've been suicide. Pius and his Germam bishops-the vast majority of which agreed that Hitler was a monster that had to be stopped-were walking an extremely fine line. To protest openly might get them arrested or killed. It might also trigger persecution against ordinary German Catholics. They were also worried that it would trigger more intense persecution of Jews if they said the wrong thing at the wrong time. I don't think any of us can appreciate the weight on Pius' and his bishops' shoulders.

That article was pure anti-Catholic propaganda and nothing else.

And no Catholic I've ever met or read worships man or a man. They accord Pope Benedict XVI the respect they feel he desrves as Christ's Vicar on earth, but they do not worship him. Or the Virgin Mary. Or any other saint. They make a disctinction between veneration of the saints and worship of God.

Protestants and Catholics will never be able to understand one another and work together in areas of comon cause-such as ecumenism and the pro-life movement-as long as we each keep rehashing the same old untrue stereotypes about each other.

Pax.

Are you considering becoming a Catholic, Lee Freeman?

The Catholic Church's view from their perspective...

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0033.html

----------------

And JPII at Yad Vashem:

The words of the ancient Psalm, rise from our hearts: "I have become like a broken vessel. I hear the whispering of many -- terror on every side -- as they scheme together against me, as they plot to take my life. But I trust in you, O Lord: I say, 'you are my God."' (Psalms 31:13-15)

In this place of memories, the mind and heart and soul feel an extreme need for silence. Silence in which to remember. Silence in which to try to make some sense of the memories which come flooding back. Silence because there are no words strong enough to deplore the terrible tragedy of the Shoah.

My own personal memories are of all that happened when the Nazis occupied Poland during the war. I remember my Jewish friends and neighbors, some of whom perished, while others survived. I have come to Yad Vashem to pay homage to the millions of Jewish people who, stripped of everything, especially of human dignity, were murdered in the Holocaust. More than half a century has passed, but the memories remain.

Here, as at Auschwitz and many other places in Europe, we are overcome by the echo of the heart-rending laments of so many. Men, women and children, cry out to us from the depths of the horror that they knew. How can we fail to heed their cry? No one can forget or ignore what happened. No one can diminish its scale.

We wish to remember. But we wish to remember for a purpose, namely to ensure that never again will evil prevail, as it did for the millions of innocent victims of Nazism.

How could man have such utter contempt for man? Because he had reached the point of contempt for God. Only a godless ideology could plan and carry out the extermination of a whole people.

The honor given to the 'Just Gentiles' by the state of Israel at Yad Vashem for having acted heroically to save Jews, sometimes to the point of giving their own lives, is a recognition that not even in the darkest hour is every light extinguished. That is why the Psalms and the entire Bible, though well aware of the human capacity for evil, also proclaims that evil will not have the last word.

Out of the depths of pain and sorrow, the believer's heart cries out: "I trust in you, O Lord: 'I say, you are my God."' (Psalms 31:14)

Jews and Christians share an immense spiritual patrimony, flowing from God's self-revelation. Our religious teachings and our spiritual experience demand that we overcome evil with good. We remember, but not with any desire for vengeance or as an incentive to hatred. For us, to remember is to pray for peace and justice, and to commit ourselves to their cause. Only a world at peace, with justice for all, can avoid repeating the mistakes and terrible crimes of the past.

As bishop of Rome and successor of the Apostle Peter, I assure the Jewish people that the Catholic Church, motivated by the Gospel law of truth and love, and by no political considerations, is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any place.

The church rejects racism in any form as a denial of the image of the Creator inherent in every human being.

In this place of solemn remembrance, I fervently pray that our sorrow for the tragedy which the Jewish people suffered in the 20th century will lead to a new relationship between Christians and Jews. Let us build a new future in which there will be no more anti-Jewish feeling among Christians or anti-Christian feeling among Jews, but rather the mutual respect required of those who adore the one Creator and Lord, and look to Abraham as our common father in faith.

The world must heed the warning that comes to us from the victims of the Holocaust, and from the testimony of the survivors. Here at Yad Vashem the memory lives on, and burns itself onto our souls. It makes us cry out: "I hear the whispering of many -- terror on every side -- but I trust in you, O Lord: I say, 'You are my God."' (Psalms 31:13-15)

March 23, 2000

Here is the dreaded Concordat reached between the RCC and the Reich:

QuoteHis Holiness Pope Pius XI and the President of the German Reich, moved by a common desire to consolidate and enhance the friendly relations existing between the Holy See and the German Reich, wish to regulate the relations between the Catholic Church and the State for the whole territory of the German Reich in a permanent manner and on a basis acceptable to both parties. They have decided to conclude a solemn agreement, which will supplement the Concordats already concluded with certain individual German states, and will ensure for the remaining States fundamentally uniform treatment of their respective problems.

For this purpose:

His Holiness Pope Pius XI has appointed as his Plenipotentiary His Eminence the Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, his Secretary of State.

The President of the German Reich has appointed as Plenipotentiary the Vice-Chancellor of the German Reich, Herr Franz von Papen.

Who, having exchanged their respective credentials and found them to be in due and proper form, have agreed to the following articles:

Article 1

The German Reich guarantees freedom of profession and public practice of the Catholic religion.

It acknowledges the right of the Catholic Church, within the limit of those laws which are applicable to all, to manage and regulate her own affairs independently, and, within the framework of her own competence, to publish laws and ordinances binding on her members.

Article 2

The Concordats concluded with Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929) and Baden (1932) remain in force, and the rights and privileges of the Catholic Church recognized therein are secured unchanged within the territories of the States concerned. For the remaining States the agreements entered into in the present Concordat come into force in their entirety. These last are also binding for those States named above in so far as they affect matters not regulated by the regional Concordats or are complementary to the settlement already made.

In the future, regional Concordats with States of the German Reich will be concluded only with the agreement of the Reich Government.

Article 3

In order to foster good relations between the Holy See and the German Reich, an Apostolic Nuncio will reside in the capital of the German Reich and an Ambassador of the German Reich at the Holy See, as heretofore.

Article 4

In its relations and correspondence with the bishops, clergy and other members of the Catholic Church in Germany, the Holy See enjoys full freedom. The same applies to the bishops and other diocesan officials in their dealings with the faithful in all matters belonging to their pastoral office.

Instructions, ordinances, Pastoral Letters, official diocesan gazettes, and other enactments regarding the spiritual direction of the faithful issued by the ecclesiastical authorities within the framework of their competence (Art. 1, Sect. 2) may be published without hindrance and brought to the notice of the faithful in the form hitherto usual.

Article 5

In the exercise of their spiritual activities the clergy enjoy the protection of the State in the same way as State officials. The State will take proceedings in accordance with the general provisions of State law against any outrage offered to the clergy personally or directed against their ecclesiastical character, or any interference with the duties of their office, and in case of need will provide official protection.

Article 6

Clerics and Religious are freed from any obligation to undertake official offices and such obligations as, according to the provisions of Canon Law, are incompatible with the clerical or religious state. This applies particularly to the office of magistrate, juryman, member of Taxation Committee or member of the Fiscal Tribunal.

Article 7

The acceptance of an appointment or office in the State, or in any publicly constituted corporation dependent on the State, requires, in the case of the clergy, the nihil obstat of the Diocesan Ordinary of the individual concerned, as well as that of the Ordinary of the place in which the publicly constituted corporation is situated. The nihil obstat may be withdrawn at any time for grave reasons affecting ecclesiastical interests.

Article 8

The official income of the clergy is immune from distraint to the same extent as is the official salary of officials of the Reich and State.

Article 9

The clergy may not be required by judicial and other officials to give information concerning matters which have been entrusted to them while exercising the care of souls, and which therefore come within the obligation of pastoral secrecy.

Article 10

The wearing of clerical dress or of a religious habit on the part of lay folk, or of clerics or religious who have been forbidden to wear them by a final and valid injunction made by the competent ecclesiastical authority and officially communicated to the State authority, is liable to the same penalty on the part of the State as the misuse of military uniform.

You can read the rest at New Advent

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 09:38:32
Are you considering becoming a Catholic, Lee Freeman?

No. But I want to be fair and accurate when I talk about the Catholic Church. Protestants don't like it when Catholics misrepresent us, so I'm sure that works both ways. I'm just as bothered when Catholics misrepresent Protestants as I am when Protestants misrepresent Catholics. However the issue under discussion in this thread is also a matter of historical record. I think anyone who carefully investigates the history of the Vatican's dealings with Nazi Germany will see clearly that Pius XII did everything he could to save the Jews.

Pax.

Nothing sinister at all in the Concordat. Thanks for posting that Ken.

Pax.

Lee, none of what you claim you have seen is anything like what I have seen.  Sorry... it's just not so for the WHOLE church.  I know people who openly claim Mary worship is right, and that she is part of their redemption.  She is equal with Christ.  She is the Queen of Heaven.  I guess you are just blessed not to have had to deal with such nonsense... but it's out there. 

May I ask, what would you say when someone presented you with these false doctrines as a right belief?   As I have had to deal with in  many of the Catholics I know.

I had someone who told me that Mary was equal with Jesus in the redemption process, (a catholic) tell me it was blasphemy when I said it was not true.  How would you reply?

I don't see how anyone can honestly claim Catholics don't worship Mary when they elevate her as an equal to Christ by calling her "Co-Redemptrix", "Mediatrix" and "Advocate".

http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/coredemedadv.HTM

All the veneration garbage is just doublespeak.

Quote from: kensington on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 11:55:00
Lee, none of what you claim you have seen is anything like what I have seen.  Sorry... it's just not so for the WHOLE church.  I know people who openly claim Mary worship is right, and that she is part of their redemption.  She is equal with Christ.  I guess you are just blessed not to have had to deal with such nonsense... but it's out there. 

I base my information on discussions with several friends who are Catholic, 20 years of studying early church, medieval European and subsequent Catholic history and theology (including the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Dictionary of Mary, etc.), and 20 years' worth of regular viewing of EWTN.

I've yet to read one Catholic priest/theologian who claims that Catholics do or should worship Mary. Do I believe there may be some Catholic laymen who are not able to make the distinction between the worship that is reserved for God alone, and the veneration accorded the saints? Yes. I'm sure there are people who for all practical purposes worship Mary. There certainly were in the Middle Ages. But my point is that this has never been and is not now, official Catholic doctrine.

But this has nothing to do with the fact that what CS Sloan posted to kick off this thread is nothing but anti-Catholic propaganda. Its spin. Pius XII was not a Nazi, nor was he in league with the Nazis nor sympathetic to their views. He was always opposed to them from day one. The only thing Pius worried might be worse than the Nazis were the Communists of the Soviet Union, and he was not alone in this. A lot of people at first worried that Soviet Communism was a worse threat to global peace than the Nazis.

Pax.

Quote from: kensington on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 18:00:58

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 12:38:36
Some day somebody will find pictures of me shaking hands with somebody who might later prove to be a major scumbag. 

Well, I would pray it wasn't Hitler... or that you were seen giving the "hail" sign...  that cannot be denied.  I don't care who doesn't like the history of this article... seeing Catholic Priest doing the "hail Hitler" makes me want to throw up. 

But, I guess you would have to have an understanding for the Jews to feel that way. 

Seeing them do this sign, is just more evidence to that whole "idol" thing they go in for.  Worship of man.  It's a no brainer.

I thought the Heil Hitler thing was a salute.  (granted, one could define patriotism as idolatrous)  I don't think it was a hand signal for "there goes a Jew now, kill him"   I suspect (though I am not a credible student of history) that the full meaning behind that action began to take shape with time, much like word meanings changing.    (ie. gay used to mean happy.  How many christians could say "I am gay" a hundred years ago and how many can say the same thing now?)   However, if it really meant  Hail Hitler or Hell, Hitler...  then I stand corrected. 

By the way, even little Adolf was a baby once.  His hideousness took shape over time.   I don't know when the catholic leadership (or individuals anyway) felt a civil union of sorts and when they became naseated.

Quote from: s1n4m1n on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 10:22:11
Here is the dreaded Concordat reached between the RCC and the Reich:

QuoteHis Holiness Pope Pius XI and the President of the German Reich, moved by a common desire to consolidate and enhance the friendly relations existing between the Holy See and the German Reich, wish to regulate the relations between the Catholic Church and the State for the whole territory of the German Reich in a permanent manner and on a basis acceptable to both parties. They have decided to conclude a solemn agreement, which will supplement the Concordats already concluded with certain individual German states, and will ensure for the remaining States fundamentally uniform treatment of their respective problems.

For this purpose:

His Holiness Pope Pius XI has appointed as his Plenipotentiary His Eminence the Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, his Secretary of State.

The President of the German Reich has appointed as Plenipotentiary the Vice-Chancellor of the German Reich, Herr Franz von Papen.

Who, having exchanged their respective credentials and found them to be in due and proper form, have agreed to the following articles:

Article 1

The German Reich guarantees freedom of profession and public practice of the Catholic religion.

It acknowledges the right of the Catholic Church, within the limit of those laws which are applicable to all, to manage and regulate her own affairs independently, and, within the framework of her own competence, to publish laws and ordinances binding on her members.

Article 2

The Concordats concluded with Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929) and Baden (1932) remain in force, and the rights and privileges of the Catholic Church recognized therein are secured unchanged within the territories of the States concerned. For the remaining States the agreements entered into in the present Concordat come into force in their entirety. These last are also binding for those States named above in so far as they affect matters not regulated by the regional Concordats or are complementary to the settlement already made.

In the future, regional Concordats with States of the German Reich will be concluded only with the agreement of the Reich Government.

Article 3

In order to foster good relations between the Holy See and the German Reich, an Apostolic Nuncio will reside in the capital of the German Reich and an Ambassador of the German Reich at the Holy See, as heretofore.

Article 4

In its relations and correspondence with the bishops, clergy and other members of the Catholic Church in Germany, the Holy See enjoys full freedom. The same applies to the bishops and other diocesan officials in their dealings with the faithful in all matters belonging to their pastoral office.

Instructions, ordinances, Pastoral Letters, official diocesan gazettes, and other enactments regarding the spiritual direction of the faithful issued by the ecclesiastical authorities within the framework of their competence (Art. 1, Sect. 2) may be published without hindrance and brought to the notice of the faithful in the form hitherto usual.

Article 5

In the exercise of their spiritual activities the clergy enjoy the protection of the State in the same way as State officials. The State will take proceedings in accordance with the general provisions of State law against any outrage offered to the clergy personally or directed against their ecclesiastical character, or any interference with the duties of their office, and in case of need will provide official protection.

Article 6

Clerics and Religious are freed from any obligation to undertake official offices and such obligations as, according to the provisions of Canon Law, are incompatible with the clerical or religious state. This applies particularly to the office of magistrate, juryman, member of Taxation Committee or member of the Fiscal Tribunal.

Article 7

The acceptance of an appointment or office in the State, or in any publicly constituted corporation dependent on the State, requires, in the case of the clergy, the nihil obstat of the Diocesan Ordinary of the individual concerned, as well as that of the Ordinary of the place in which the publicly constituted corporation is situated. The nihil obstat may be withdrawn at any time for grave reasons affecting ecclesiastical interests.

Article 8

The official income of the clergy is immune from distraint to the same extent as is the official salary of officials of the Reich and State.

Article 9

The clergy may not be required by judicial and other officials to give information concerning matters which have been entrusted to them while exercising the care of souls, and which therefore come within the obligation of pastoral secrecy.

Article 10

The wearing of clerical dress or of a religious habit on the part of lay folk, or of clerics or religious who have been forbidden to wear them by a final and valid injunction made by the competent ecclesiastical authority and officially communicated to the State authority, is liable to the same penalty on the part of the State as the misuse of military uniform.

You can read the rest at New Advent

Wow. Very timely insight. One can argue the wisdom of such a declaration (I wouldn't be surprised if the Church, or individual congregations or individual christians has declared similar 'lines in the sand), but this indicates something far short of shared intent to herd Jews to the gas chamber.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 12:14:17

Quote from: kensington on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 11:55:00
Lee, none of what you claim you have seen is anything like what I have seen.  Sorry... it's just not so for the WHOLE church.  I know people who openly claim Mary worship is right, and that she is part of their redemption.  She is equal with Christ.  I guess you are just blessed not to have had to deal with such nonsense... but it's out there. 

I base my information on discussions with several friends who are Catholic, 20 years of studying early church, medieval European and subsequent Catholic history and theology (including the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Dictionary of Mary, etc.), and 20 years' worth of regular viewing of EWTN.

I've yet to read one Catholic priest/theologian who claims that Catholics do or should worship Mary. Do I believe there may be some Catholic laymen who are not able to make the distinction between the worship that is reserved for God alone, and the veneration accorded the saints? Yes. I'm sure there are people who for all practical purposes worship Mary. There certainly were in the Middle Ages. But my point is that this has never been and is not now, official Catholic doctrine.

But this has nothing to do with the fact that what CS Sloan posted to kick off this thread is nothing but anti-Catholic propaganda. Its spin. Pius XII was not a Nazi, nor was he in league with the Nazis nor sympathetic to their views. He was always opposed to them from day one. The only thing Pius worried might be worse than the Nazis were the Communists of the Soviet Union, and he was not alone in this. A lot of people at first worried that Soviet Communism was a worse threat to global peace than the Nazis.

Pax.

So is your answer that you have NEVER met one Catholic who states what has been stated to me?  Or who believes it?  So, I guess then you have no rebut for that situation?  Why me?  Why do I get the joy of coming across these people.

And I hate to disagree with you, but I have seen this doctrine on EWTN...  I sure have.

Quote from: zoonance on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 12:58:00

Quote from: kensington on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 18:00:58

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 12:38:36
Some day somebody will find pictures of me shaking hands with somebody who might later prove to be a major scumbag. 

Well, I would pray it wasn't Hitler... or that you were seen giving the "hail" sign...  that cannot be denied.  I don't care who doesn't like the history of this article... seeing Catholic Priest doing the "hail Hitler" makes me want to throw up. 

But, I guess you would have to have an understanding for the Jews to feel that way. 

Seeing them do this sign, is just more evidence to that whole "idol" thing they go in for.  Worship of man.  It's a no brainer.

I thought the Heil Hitler thing was a salute.  (granted, one could define patriotism as idolatrous)  I don't think it was a hand signal for "there goes a Jew now, kill him"   I suspect (though I am not a credible student of history) that the full meaning behind that action began to take shape with time, much like word meanings changing.    (ie. gay used to mean happy.  How many christians could say "I am gay" a hundred years ago and how many can say the same thing now?)   However, if it really meant  Hail Hitler or Hell, Hitler...  then I stand corrected. 

By the way, even little Adolf was a baby once.  His hideousness took shape over time.   I don't know when the catholic leadership (or individuals anyway) felt a civil union of sorts and when they became naseated.

It was a salute, and stands still today as the salute to an insane murderous dictator who tried to rule the world and killed 6 million Jews on his path of destruction.  It was a salute of Him.  Still today it makes a Jew cringe.  It's a sign of the death and destruction that he contrived for a created people.  Yep... one of the most devilish salutes to date.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 12:14:17
But this has nothing to do with the fact that what CS Sloan posted to kick off this thread is nothing but anti-Catholic propaganda. Its spin. Pius XII was not a Nazi, nor was he in league with the Nazis nor sympathetic to their views.

Maybe you should re-read the OP where Ratzinger said there was no opposition to Nazism but that they showed mutual support. Or that there was anti-Jewish sentiment that was openly accepted among Catholics, or how Bishop Buchberger called Nazi racism directed at Jews "justified self-defense

Zoo - It's the same physical act that used to take place in American schools when saying the pledge.  It's no wonder the salute was dropped like a hot potato after the war.



I noticed the picture was taken in '33, the year Hitler was elected (Roosevelt, too, for that matter).  Depending on when in '33 it was taken, those men may or may not have understood his intentions, though it would have been a narrow window.  By April, I believe, the government was already encouraging the boycott of Jewish business and building concentration camps (early in the year they were supposedly only for enemies of the state, later the state would define "enemy" to include the Jews and many other innocent parties).  Many Germans after the war claimed not to have any idea just what "the final solution" really was, or just how evil Hitler's actions had really been.  Looking back, that seems awfully difficult, but to some extent, we see in our own nation many a citizen without so much as a clue to what goes on beyond the end of their nose.  I wonder, is it possible some of those priests might have been "typical Germans" that didn't understand?  

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 13:47:46

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 12:14:17
But this has nothing to do with the fact that what CS Sloan posted to kick off this thread is nothing but anti-Catholic propaganda. Its spin. Pius XII was not a Nazi, nor was he in league with the Nazis nor sympathetic to their views.

Maybe you should re-read the OP where Ratzinger said there was no opposition to Nazism but that they showed mutual support. Or that there was anti-Jewish sentiment that was openly accepted among Catholics, or how Bishop Buchberger called Nazi racism directed at Jews "justified self-defense

Lee, you should be an attorney.  Very impressive.  Nicely done.  I wish my students had your kind of research and analytical skills.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 13:54:56
Zoo - It's the same physical act that used to take place in American schools when saying the pledge.  It's no wonder the salute was dropped like a hot potato after the war.



I noticed the picture was taken in '33, the year Hitler was elected (Roosevelt, too, for that matter).  Depending on when in '33 it was taken, those men may or may not have understood his intentions, though it would have been a narrow window.  By April, I believe, the government was already encouraging the boycott of Jewish business and building concentration camps (early in the year they were supposedly only for enemies of the state, later the state would define "enemy" to include the Jews and many other innocent parties).  Many Germans after the war claimed not to have any idea just what "the final solution" really was, or just how evil Hitler's actions had really been.  Looking back, that seems awfully difficult, but to some extent, we see in our own nation many a citizen without so much as a clue to what goes on beyond the end of their nose.  I wonder, is it possible some of those priests might have been "typical Germans" that didn't understand?  

Wow. 

Quote from: jmg3rd on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 13:54:56
Zoo - It's the same physical act that used to take place in American schools when saying the pledge.  It's no wonder the salute was dropped like a hot potato after the war.



I noticed the picture was taken in '33, the year Hitler was elected (Roosevelt, too, for that matter).  Depending on when in '33 it was taken, those men may or may not have understood his intentions, though it would have been a narrow window.  By April, I believe, the government was already encouraging the boycott of Jewish business and building concentration camps (early in the year they were supposedly only for enemies of the state, later the state would define "enemy" to include the Jews and many other innocent parties).  Many Germans after the war claimed not to have any idea just what "the final solution" really was, or just how evil Hitler's actions had really been.  Looking back, that seems awfully difficult, but to some extent, we see in our own nation many a citizen without so much as a clue to what goes on beyond the end of their nose.  I wonder, is it possible some of those priests might have been "typical Germans" that didn't understand?  

You said it better than I was trying to say.   Unless they could see and predict the future, they had only the present (and likely some past) to determine their "stand" on the current issues at hand.

If I played with little Adolf in the sandbox as a 5 year old, would I be labeled a friend and Ally of the Nazi party and the third reich?

What about a young teenage girl trying to get her first kiss of the then 15 year old zit faced Adolf?  Would she be the "mistress" of the satan incarnate at that moment?


What about at 20?  25? 30?   at some point he was the "barak obama" of the german people.  (NO I AM NOT COMPARING THE TWO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)  He continued to deteriorate until a point in time where association = connection.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 12:07:17
I don't see how anyone can honestly claim Catholics don't worship Mary when they elevate her as an equal to Christ by calling her "Co-Redemptrix", "Mediatrix" and "Advocate".

http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/coredemedadv.HTM

All the veneration garbage is just doublespeak.

It's only doublespeak to those lacking the honesty and purity of heart to actually listen in love to those they disagre with.

Or to those who lack the intellectual honesty (or capacity) to make legitimate distinctions.

I'll let you decide which of these you are.

If your convicted because your sect is entangled in these same practices don't spill your venom out on me.

Maybe its time you find yourself a another group.

Good grief!  How many times do I have to say it: I'm not a Roman Catholic.  I'm Eastern Orthodox!

Ya'll's ignorance is appalling.

Oh, and by the way, Chuck, as Lee has pointed out (with reputable scientific evidence, mind you and not your dishonest spin hack "journalism" pieces you cite), *all* "sects" are entangled in these practices.  Your deceptive dodge that this isn't done systematically in the RM churches is hypocritical at best.